It is useless I think to attempt to bring out the meaning of the Vedanta thought as contained in the Brahma-sutras without making any reference to the commentary of Shankara or any other commentator. There is reason to believe that the Brahma-sutras were first commented upon by some Vaishnava writers who held some form of modified dualism.

There have been more than a half dozen Vaishnava commentators of the Brahma-sutras who not only differed from Shankara’s interpretation, but also differed largely amongst themselves in accordance with the different degrees of stress they laid on the different aspects of their dualistic creeds. Every one of them claimed that his interpretation was the only one that was faithful to the sutras and to he Upanishads. Should I attempt to give an interpretation myself and claim that to be the right one, it would be only just one additional view. But however that may be, I am myself inclined to believe that the dualistic interpretations of the Brahma-sutras were probably more faithful to the sutras than the interpretations of Shankara.

The Shrimadbhagavadgita, which itself was a work of the Ekanti (singularistic) Vaishnavas, mentions the Brahma-sutras as having the same purport as its own, giving cogent reasons (1). Professor Jacobi in discussing the date of the philosophical sutras of the Hindus has shown that the references to Buddhism found in the Brahma-sutras are not with regard to the Vijnana-vada of Vasubandhu, but with regard to the Shunyavada, but he regards the composition of the Brahma-sutras to be later than Nagarjuna. I agree with the late Dr S.C. Vidyabhushhana in holding that both the Yogacara system and the system of Nagarjuna evolved from the Prajnaparamita (2). Nagarjuna’s merit consisted in the dialectical form of his arguments in support of Shunyavada; but so far as the essentials of Shunyavada are concerned I believe that the Tathata philosophy of Ashvaghosha and the philosophy of the Prajnaparamita contained no less. There is no reason to suppose that the works of Nagarjuna were better known to the Hindu writers than the Mahayana sutras. Even in such later times as that of Vacaspati Mishra, we find him quoting a passage of the Shalistambha sutra to give an account of the Buddhist doctrine of pratityasamutpada (3). We could interpret any reference to Shunyavada as pointing to Nagarjuna only if his special phraseology or dialectical methods were referred to in any way. On the other hand, the reference in the Bhagavadgita to the Brahma-sutras clearly points out a date prior to that of Nagarjuna; though we may be slow to believe such an early date as has been assigned to the Bhagavadgita by Telang, yet I suppose that its date could safely be placed so far back as the first half of the first century B.C. or the last part of the second century B.C. The Brahma-sutras could thus be placed slightly earlier than the date of the Bhagavadgita.

I do not know of any evidence that would come in conflict with this supposition. The fact that we do not know of any Hindu writer who held such monistic views as Gaudapada or Shankara, and who interpreted the Brahma-sutras in accordance with those monistic ideas, when combined with the fact that the dualists had been writing commentaries on the Brahma-sutras, goes to show that the Brahma-sutras were originally regarded as an authoritative work of the dualists. This also explains the fact that the Bhagavadgita, the canonical work of the Ekanti Vaishnavas, should refer to it. I do not know of any Hindu writer previous to Gaudapada who attempted to give an exposition of the monistic doctrine (apart from the Upanishads), either by writing a commentary as did Shankara, or by writing an independent work as did Gaudapada. I am inclined to think therefore that as the pure monism of the Upanishads was not worked out in a coherent manner for the formation of a monistic system, it was dealt with by people who had sympathies with some form of dualism which was already developing in the later days of the Upanishads, as evidenced by the dualistic tendencies of such Upanishads as the Shvetashvatara, and the like. The epic Shamkhya was also the result of this dualistic development.

It seems that Badarayana, the writer of the Brahma-sutras, was probably more a theist, than an absolutist like his commentator Shankara. Gaudapada seems to be the most important man, after the Upanishad sages, who revived the monistic tendencies of the Upanishads in a bold and clear form and tried to formulate them in a systematic manner. It seems very significant that no other karikas on the Upanishads were interpreted, except the Mandukyakarika by Gaudapada, who did not himself make any reference to any other writer of the monistic school, not even Badarayana. Shankara himself makes the confession that the absolutist (advaita) creed was recovered from the Vedas by Gaudapada. Thus at the conclusion of his commentary on Gaudapada’s karika, he says that “he adores by falling at the feet of that great guru (teacher) the adored of his adored, who on finding all the people sinking in the ocean made dreadful by the crocodiles of rebirth, out of kindness for all people, by churning the great ocean of the Veda by his great churning rod of wisdom recovered what lay deep in the heart of the Veda, and is hardly attainable even by the immortal gods (4).” It seems particularly significant that Shankara should credit Gaudapada and not Badarayana with recovering the Upanishad creed. Gaudapada was the teacher of Govinda, the teacher of Shankara; but he was probably living when Shankara was a student, for Shankara says that he was directly influenced by his great wisdom, and also speaks of the learning, self-control and modesty of the other pupils of Gaudapada (5). There is some dispute about the date of Shankara, but accepting the date proposed by Bhandarkar, Pathak and Deussen, we may consider it to be 788 A.D. (6), and suppose that in order to be able to teach Shankara, Gaudapada must have been living till at least 800 A.D.

Gaudapada thus flourished after all the great Buddhist teachers Ashvaghosha, Nagarjuna, Asanga and Vasubandhu; and I believe that there is sufficient evidence in his karikas for thinking that he was possibly himself a Buddhist, and considered that the teachings of the Upanishads tallied with those of Buddha. Thus at the beginning of the fourth chapter of his karikas he says that he adores that great man (dvipadam varam) who by knowledge as wide as the sky realized (sambuddha) that all appearances (dharma) were like the vacuous sky (gaganopamam) (7). He then goes on to say that he adores him who has dictated (deshita) that the touch of untouch (asparshayoga–probably referring to Nirvana) was the good that produced happiness to all beings, and that he was neither in disagreement with this doctrine nor found any contradiction in it (avivadah aviruddhashca). Some disputants hold that coming into being is of existents, whereas others quarrelling with them hold that being (jata) is of non-existents (abhutasya); there are others who quarrel with them and say that neither the existents nor non-existents are liable to being and there is one non-coming-into-being (advayamajatim). He agrees with those who hold that there is no coming into being (8). In IV. 19 of his karika he again says that the Buddhas have shown that there was no coming into being in any way (sarvatha Buddhairajatih paridipitah).

Again, in IV. 42 he says that it was for those realists (vastuvadi), who since they found things and could deal with them and were afraid of non-being, that the Buddhas had spoken of origination (jati). In IV. 90 he refers to agrayana which we know to be a name of Mahayana. Again, in IV. 98 and 99 he says that all appearances are pure and vacuous by nature. These the Buddhas, the emancipated one (mukta) and the leaders know first. It was not said by the Buddha that all appearances (dharma) were knowledge. He then closes the karikas with an adoration which in all probability also refers to the Buddha (9).

1. “Brahmasutrapadaishcaiva hetumadbhirvinishcitah” Bhagavadgita.
2. Indian Antiquary, 1915.
3. See Vacaspati Mishra’s Bhamati on Shankara’s bhasya on Brahma-sutra, II. ii.
4. Shankara’s bhasya on Gaudapada’s karika, Anandashrama edition, p. 214.
5. Anandashrama edition of Shankara’s bhashya on Gaudapada’s karika, p. 21.
6. Telang wishes to put Shankara’s date somewhere in the 8th century, and Venkateshvara would have him in 805 A.D.-897 A.D., as he did not believe that Shankara could have lived only for 32 years. J.R.A.S. 1916.
7. Compare Lankavatara, p. 29, Katham ca gaganopamam.
8. Gaudapada’s karika, IV. 2, 4.
9. Gaudapada’s karika IV. 100.

brahma sutras, dualism, nagarjuna, philosophy, prajnaparamita, shankara, upanishads, vaishnava, vedanta